Growing Doubts On Vaccine In Military

[Guest guest]

Growing Doubts On Vaccine In Military

Some Refuse, Citing Lack of Iraqi Anthrax

 

By Marilyn W. Thompson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, March 27, 2004; Page A01

 

With each report on the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Airman

Jessica Horjus asked a question: If inspectors could find no signs of anthrax,

why should the Pentagon risk her health by requiring her to get the anthrax

vaccine?

 

" I have a kid to take care of, " said Horjus, 23, the mother of a 2-year-old, who

lives with her daughter in military housing at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in

Goldsboro, N.C. " The Air Force can always fill my slot with someone else, but

who's going to fill the mommy slot? "

 

When a January order came for Horjus to get the vaccine before deploying to a

Kuwait air base about 30 miles from Iraq, the soldier with commendations and

Good Conduct Medals declined. Her commander demoted her and cut her pay in half,

to less than $800 a month. In February, she declined a second and third order.

 

Horjus is one of a number of soldiers who cite the lack of anthrax in Iraq as a

reason behind their stance against the mandatory anthrax vaccine. As the

Pentagon moves thousands of troops into Iraq as part of a huge rotation of

forces, soldiers, citizen groups and members of Congress are increasingly

calling upon defense officials to stop the vaccinations.

 

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) sent a letter last week to Defense Secretary Donald

H. Rumsfeld asking him to reevaluate the mandatory policy in light of events in

Iraq. " The apparent absence of an Iraqi biological warfare capability raises

serious questions about the threat of an anthrax attack against our troops, "

Bingaman wrote. " The use of a vaccination which appears to have the potential

for serious health consequences for our troops in an effort to counter a threat

that may not exist seems to unnecessarily expose our troops to risk. "

 

The Pentagon now requires inoculation for any soldier about to deploy for more

than 15 days to what it defines as a " high-risk " area for anthrax attack.

Concerned about reports of illnesses and a death last year that officials linked

to the vaccine, soldiers headed to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are asking

more questions about the program's rationale.

 

" There is no evidence that stockpiles of anthrax exist in Iraq or with Al Qaeda

in Afghanistan or elsewhere, " Horjus wrote in a memo to the base's appellate

authority. " As a single mother, I cannot afford to unnecessarily risk my

long-term health on a highly-reactive vaccine that supposedly protects against a

threat that cannot be found. "

 

After four years of service, the young mother last week accepted the Air Force's

offer of an other-than-honorable discharge and prepared to return home to

Yorktown, Va.

 

Vaccine opponents say they are tracking dozens of cases of soldiers who are

refusing the vaccine. The demand for troops is so high that unvaccinated

soldiers may find themselves deployed nonetheless. Some are on duty in and near

Iraq and are closely monitoring the frustrated hunt for banned weapons, knowing

they will face punishment for disobeying orders when they return.

 

Pentagon officials insist that refusals are extremely rare and that the

unsuccessful search for the weapons has not changed their thinking about the

merits of the mandatory vaccine. The anthrax threat, they say, is not a distant

risk but was underscored by the 2001 domestic letter mailings that killed five

people and left thousands vulnerable to grave illness or death.

 

" The lethal anthrax attacks of the fall of 2001 did not need a sophisticated

delivery system, " Defense Department spokesman Jim Turner said in an e-mail

response to questions. " We vaccinate our people to keep them healthy. "

 

Vaccine opponents have become increasingly organized and vocal about the health

risks of the AVA vaccine, a product that has accumulated thousands of reports of

adverse reactions ranging from headaches and vomiting to severe autoimmune and

neurological problems. Opponents are using the courts to press the health issues

and lobbying Congress to give relief to soldiers whose careers ended abruptly

over their refusals to line up for shots.

 

" When troops find out that any one portion of what they've been told is a lie,

they question the rest of it, " said Kathryn Hubbell, who helped set up a

nonprofit group, the Military Vaccine Education Center, to work with soldiers.

It is also organizing a political action committee to raise money for its

lobbying efforts.

 

Among the hotly contested issues is the Pentagon's accounting of the number of

soldiers who have been " separated " from the services for refusing to take the

required six-shot regimen. Congress was so concerned about the issue in the

program's early years, when hundreds of soldiers resigned the military rather

than be vaccinated, that it began requiring the Defense Department to report

annually the number of soldier separations.

 

The department's reports for 2001 and 2002 show only three separations, and

numbers for 2003 are due this spring. Vaccine opposition leader John Richardson,

a retired Air Force Reserve lieutenant colonel, calls the Pentagon numbers a

" willful misrepresentation " used to encourage good order and discipline. He says

the Pentagon uses the strictest interpretation of the data, failing to count

cases such as Horjus's that did not result in court-martial and forced removal

from the military. Since the vaccine program began, about 100 active-duty

soldiers have been court-martialed for refusing the vaccine, according to

congressional testimony and documents.

 

Victims' advocates say they have become aware of 45 cases involving vaccine

refusers since 2002. These soldiers find themselves subjected to a wide range of

punishments.

 

" We've seen everything from quiet discharge to court-martial to imprisonment

with 60 to 90 days in the brig, " said Randi Airola, a victims' advocate who left

the Michigan Air National Guard in 1999 because of her own vaccine refusal.

" We've seen soldiers threatened with two to three to 10 years in prison when, in

the military, even rape or drug charges may not get you 10 years in prison. The

punishment is based solely on the discretion of the individual commander -- and

some want to use a sledgehammer to get people to comply. "

 

Airola recently gave a congressional committee 32 pages of e-mails sent to her

by soldiers who believe they have been made sick by the shots or are refusing to

be vaccinated.

 

" In light of these problems, " she wrote, and the absence of weaponized anthrax

spores in Iraq or Afghanistan, " it is unacceptable for Congress to continue to

follow the line that the vaccine is safe, effective and good enough for our

troops and to jail those who refuse. "

 

A key question in the vaccine debate is the safety of AVA, a product that has

been used since the 1950s to inoculate textile workers and laboratory personnel

at high risk of anthrax exposure. The vaccine was licensed by federal regulators

without being tested in large-scale human clinical trials. But the Pentagon

points to a 2002 report from the Institute of Medicine declaring the vaccine

safe and effective.

 

The vaccine, made by BioPort Inc. of Lansing, Mich., is now under attack in

three separate federal lawsuits brought by affected soldiers.

 

In U.S. District Court in Washington, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued a

preliminary injunction late last year that caused the Pentagon to briefly halt

vaccinations. The program resumed after the Food and Drug Administration offered

assurances in February that the vaccine was safe. The case, brought on behalf of

six anonymous servicemen who believe they were made ill by the vaccine and for

all of those " similarly situated, " is set for oral arguments in May.

 

Two federal judges have suggested that the military will be held accountable if

it is using soldiers to test an investigational drug without their informed

consent. Pentagon officials seemed poised to stop the program before the Sept.

11, 2001, attacks gave it a reprieve. In December, the Pentagon agreed to buy an

additional 245 million doses of BioPort's vaccine.

 

The Defense Department and other federal agencies have worked to find a new

anthrax vaccine that will produce fewer side effects.

 

Horjus said her decision to refuse the BioPort vaccine was based largely on

research and observation. Her estranged husband took the shots before deploying

to Saudi Arabia and became ill with a fever and lung congestion. She said she

read everything she could about the vaccine, doing what the military expects a

good soldier to do -- " use your head. "

 

Horjus said she became convinced that the BioPort vaccine was unsafe and

experimental, its effects on women of childbearing age unknown. She and others

were upset by a case that drew wide attention in November, when a coroner ruled

that " post-vaccine " problems may have contributed to the death of Army Spec.

Rachel Lacy.

 

Army Lt. Gen. James B. Peake of the U.S. Army Medical Command sent a memo to

commanders in February mentioning Lacy's death and telling them to be alert for

adverse reactions. " The overwhelming majority of immunizations are followed by

mild symptoms. . . . Unfortunately, the U.S. Army lost a valuable soldier in

April, 2003, a month after receiving five vaccinations during mobilization, "

Peake wrote. " Although the evidence was inconclusive, medical experts determined

that vaccination may have contributed to her death. "

 

Adding to Horjus's concern were reports of two airmen at Seymour Johnson who

became seriously ill after receiving the shots.

 

One solider said in an interview she has suffered lightheadedness, night sweats

and " grayouts " since receiving three of the six required shots. She asked that

her name not be used because of fears that it could hurt her effort to receive

specialized treatment at a Walter Reed Army Medical Center vaccine clinic.

 

" Before these shots, I was a normal, healthy 20-year-old, " she said. " So far,

I've dodged the fourth shot, but if they try to make me take it, I'll be

traveling down Jessica Horjus's path. "

 

Horjus and the two sick soldiers have become part of Airola's outreach network.

She directs soldiers and their families to medical information and counsels

soldiers preparing to refuse the vaccine. Many, she said, write letters to their

commanders explaining that they are willing to deploy, even to indemnify the

military against any possible anthrax exposure they might suffer on the

battlefield, but " they just don't want to take these shots. "

 

At Fort Campbell, Ky., Army Sgt. Richard Norris, 27, is awaiting punishment for

refusing the shots. When his unit of the 101st Airborne Division left for Iraq

in February 2003, Norris was sent anyway, with no vaccine -- and no questions

asked.

 

He returned in December to find himself still flagged as " punishment pending, " a

status that has " put my whole career basically on pause.

 

" I've served my country for seven years, " said Norris, a Seventh-Day Adventist

who tried unsuccessfully to get a religious exemption from the vaccine program.

" Refusing this vaccine is the first bad thing I've ever done. It wasn't even

necessary to have this vaccine, and still I'm going to be punished. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28133-2004Mar26?language=printer